Shipbucket

During the cold war, the US Navy has proposed (and sometimes build) tons of big nuclear warships. Because these are awesome, and I wanted to research them, I decided to draw a few. This is by no means a big research article like project DX is, but just me finding some amazing ship designs and drawing them, and somehow most if not all have reactors

First of all, the most powerful of the true cruiser designs...... the Long Beach AEGIS conversion.



edit: DEPRICIATED VERSION, CURRENT VERSION AT PAGE 2.
The above version was based on faulty references which I have rectified with a brand new drawing.


Please let me know what you think More coming soon, I hope.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Well, we have seen that (kind) of before. Not much change nor innovative approach... Shading "scale" in the superstructure is too wide and below the waterline too low.

Shading is a matter of taste, I prefer it like this.
I don't understand what you are trying to say with the rest of the message

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

I think it looks good, the original drawing of the AEGIS conversion was probably drawn a good decade ago and needed a refresh.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Very nicely drawn, and I am excited to see this series progress. A few thoughts:

• The arrangement of SLQ-32 and the Phalanx seems very unlikely. The SLQ-32 (on a somewhat deeper and more substantial structure) is clear on the artist's concept. Locating Phalanx within its "view" would likely cause major interference in an important missile seeker band, and would physically block other bands. I'm not sure where I'd put Phalanx instead; for such a big ship, she is fairly cramped amidships. If both must be fitted (a reasonable conclusion), I think I'd reconstruct the SLQ-32 arrangement and locate Phalanx above it, sort of like on a Tico (speaking of drawings that need some TLC!!).
• I think the Mk 32 launchers would more likely be under the flight deck, as (IIRC) this is where NAVSEA located them on CGN-42. Certainly they are not seen on the artist's sketch.
• On the artist's concept, the aft fixed launchers are clearly Harpoon (although you could argue they'd be changed out during construction or in service).
• The lattice mast shows, from bottom to top, SPQ-9, SPS-55, and Hawk Link. These are all below the level of the top. Several unidentified ESM cones are aft of the lattice on the levels of Hawk Link and SPS-55.
• The topmast shows, from top to bottom, an unidentified dome (IMHO probably supposed to represent a lightweight ESM warner, something like the predecessor system to ES-3701), a light bar (?), AS-1735/SRC around-the-mast UHF, a Link 16 collar, another light bar (?), and another AS-1735. Curiously, there's no obvious TACAN in the artist's painting. The VHF whips you've included are absent.

These vary in "severity" -- I'm sure there'd have to be a TACAN somewhere; on the other hand, the ABLs are very defensible.

Looking forward to more

Hmm. The issue here is the fact that we are quite certain the artist impression is not perfect either. I mean, an CSGN prototype without the tomahawks, which the ship already had before the refit? and no TACAN?
I will take a look at this again and check the sources I used, there seems to be a lot of variation between linedrawings and artist impressions. I for example have an linedrawing that looks like it is done by a.d baker, but which has the phalanx on the platform I have put the SLQ on here and 2 Mk 71 guns. I also have an artist impression which has the phalanx and SLQ on the positions I drew them, and an Mk 71 aft but the tomahawks forwards.

Hmmmmm....... I might have to return to this one soon

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

For what it's worth, I'd trade the masthead ESM for TACAN, keep the ABLs, keep the VHF, and do something Tico-y with the Phalanx

It's always seemed odd ot me that there is no SPS-49 or equivalent on the design. I guess it just didn't fit the very constrained nuclear hull, but I'd have liked to push the rear SPY-1 (and attendant illuminators) to the very back of the hangar block, then located a SPS-49 roughly where the third illuminator sits. This would also give plenty of space on the hangar roof for a Phalanx-over-SLQ-32 arrangement.

edit: that is to say, something like this,

Well, that would put the SPY radar directly over the reactor hatch IIRC...... Which I suspect is the reason for that short superstructure

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

My two cents guys,
Complicated
The rare views of artists impression are different from each other...
1 or 2 8"in guns

On any reference I see, there's a housing for helodirection crew above the hangar.
Also I am with Erik on the fact that the phalanx and the SQL can't both go there.

I see a lot of differences in the refs and your drawing as well.

Which one are you predicting or all in one?

Cause I see a square hangar in one with open midships,
or one with closed midships and angled hangar
you predict closed midships with square hangar.

Those tomahawk launchers are wrong.

I don't see any overhang for the harpoons on any reference, but you show it?

Also the helipad area is shown the same in any reference, cut angled in. You show some weird cure that's also different from the one you show in the closed midships forward end.
So 2 styles on 1 ship?




A sidenote, not an attack but since I don't get any explanation you give on shading wise (language barrier?)
And you say shading is a persons perspective and taste. Why do you keep bashing my shading on my AU ships then?
While this is clearly an NB and not an AU (so even worse if you do wrong).

_________________
Fryssian AU with Lt.Maverick 114
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=9802&p=193331#p193331

Embarked on: HNLMS Karel Doorman A833
To do list:
-Zeven Provincien class cruiser
-Joint support ship all sides
-F124 Sachsen class frigate
-F125 Baden-Württemberg class frigate
-Clemencau class aircraft carrier
-Zeven provincien class frigate
-Poolster class AOR
-Amsterdam class AOR
-Minas Gerais aircraft carrier